Добро пожаловать, Гость. Пожалуйста авторизуйтесь здесь.
FGHIGate на GaNJa NeTWoRK ST@Ti0N - Просмотр сообщения в эхоконференции ENET.SYSOP
Введите FGHI ссылку:


Присутствуют сообщения из эхоконференции ENET.SYSOP с датами от 10 Jul 13 21:42:12 до 28 Apr 24 22:34:46, всего сообщений: 12491
Ответить на сообщение К списку сообщений Предыдущее сообщение Следующее сообщение
= Сообщение: 8483 из 12491 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP =
От   : David Rance                      2:203/2            24 Apr 19 23:06:58
Кому : Björn Felten                                        24 Apr 19 23:06:58
Тема : Know your classics
FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:203/2+5cc0cfea
На   : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:203/2+5cc09746
= Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP437 ==================================
==============================================================================
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 19:05:15 Björn Felten -> Ward Dossche wrote:

BF>>> And yes Ward, I *do* know my classics... 8-)

WD>> "There can be only 1"

BF>   I'm happy that you finally seem to agree with me that Sean's TCOB1
BF> origin line is wrong. It's not supposed to be, according to our
BF> classics, Sean's "There Can Only Be 1", it should be "There Can Be Only
BF> 1".

BF>   E.g. TCBO1

BF>   And I even think this is in accordance with English Proper, but I'll
BF> await the verdict of our beloved UK English guru (David Rance) before I
BF> concede.

<grin> Thank you for the accolade!

In fact, the word "only" is something that I often have to take issue with. (Sorry, Winston, "something with which I often have to take issue"!) Generally speaking, my understanding is that "only" should closely precede the word that it is qualifying.

In the example above you and Ward are correct as the word "only" is qualifying "one" (or 1 if you prefer). But it wouldn't be completely wrong to put it before "be" as Sean has done. In this case "only" is qualifying the state, or otherwise, of being. Or, if you like, giving some greater emphasis to "being" rather than the quantity of one. Maybe that's what Sean intended (and I suspect he did!).

In this particular case it doesn't make much difference to the sense. But here's a sentence where the position of "only" does make a difference:

"He only came on Thursday." In that sentence it implies that "he came on Thursday but didn't go away again".

But if the sentence were "He came only on Thursday" it suggests that his arrival was more recent than was otherwise supposed.

Then again, if it were "Only he came on Thursday", it suggests that there were others who didn't.

The trouble is, in this modern day and age, very few Anglophones would recognise, or even understand, the difference.

BF>   I hereby challenge you, Ward, for the title of the Master of the
BF> Classics. 8-)

Ah well, that's not something on which I want to adjudicate!

David

--
David Rance    writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

--- Turnpike/6.07-M (<bw4l6ONX69cAcR7O3Jh$AP9esd>)
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

К главной странице гейта
Powered by NoSFeRaTU`s FGHIGate
Открытие страницы: 0.061777 секунды